Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:48 AM - Re: Lightning Kitplanes Article (James, Clive R)
2. 03:58 AM - Re: Lightning Kitplanes Article (Brian Whittingham)
3. 05:40 AM - Re: Lightning Kitplanes Article (N1BZRich@aol.com)
4. 10:04 AM - Re: 51% Rule (jhausch)
5. 05:34 PM - Re: Re: 51% Rule (Sales Email Account)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Lightning Kitplanes Article |
How about a scan and E mail out a pdf for those of us that don't get the
mag across the pond...?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Whittingham
Sent: 30 July 2008 00:27
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Article
Jim,
Similar feelings here, but still an interesting read and great
publicity. Loved the pictures too! I used to live out by that lake
they're flying over. Everytime that we got ready to shoot air to air
that's where we went. Brian W.
> From: pequeajim@gmail.com
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Article
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:18:50 -0400
>
> --> <pequeajim@gmail.com>
>
> I have mixed emotions about the article. I tend to not enjoy articles
> as much when the author has multiple opinions throughout. I also think
> he should have done his review based on the current production model.
> If you know you are going to write about the latest version, why
> comment in detail about the older one?
>
> I'll leave that where it lies and then add some additional thoughts
later.
> I don't want to ruin it for anyone either...
>
> Jim!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> Whittingham
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:40 PM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Article
>
> <dashvii@hotmail.com>
>
>
> All,
>
> I have read the kitplanes article from the September 2008 issue. I
> haven't seen it on the shelves yet, but you can buy it pay per view
here:
> http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/25_9/flight_reports/issues_flightrepor
> ts_834 4-1.phtml or if you're a geek like me you can get it now and
> then get the magazine when it comes out too! It is a great read that
> will show you some of the development of the safety, reliability, and
> feel.
>
> The last one, although I have not gotten a chance to fly the latest
> verion of the Lightning is a big one. I loved the only slightly
> positive pitch stability of the original. I know that Buz and Nick
felt the same way.
> This made it feel a lot more like an aerobatic sportplane or a
> fighter. The change in feel does make the plane much easier to fly,
> more forgiving, and eases the pilot workload. The new engine mount
> moves the CG forward, improves feel and safety, and in my opinion
> makes the plane look even better.
>
> You'll notice that the guy who wrote the article had to get through to
> the current demonstrator in improvements before he liked the handling.
> Everything else he loved about the plane except pitch feel. I won't
> spoil the ending by telling you what he thought about the new changes,
> but I will say this: the guy was lucky enough to fly 3 Lightnings! I
> think he was just trying to get a little extra free stick time
personally ;-) Brian W.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
> http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_
> WL_fam
> ily_safety_072008
>
>
=======================
>
>
>
>
________________________________
Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now!
<http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm>
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Lightning Kitplanes Article |
I think that it would raise legal issues to copy a current magazine article
for mass distribution when Kitplanes is trying to sale it. You can always
go to that link that I sent out though and buy a .PDF version even if you
are overseas. Brian W.> Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes A
rticle> Date: Wed=2C 30 Jul 2008 10:45:30 +0100> From: clive.james@uk.bp.co
m> To: lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List message posted by
: "James=2C Clive R" <clive.james@uk.bp.com>> > How about a scan and E mail
out a pdf for those of us that don't get the> mag across the pond...? > >
-----Original Message-----> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian> Wh
ittingham> Sent: 30 July 2008 00:27> To: lightning-list@matronics.com> Subj
ect: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Article> > Jim=2C> Similar fee
lings here=2C but still an interesting read and great> publicity. Loved the
pictures too! I used to live out by that lake> they're flying over. Everyt
ime that we got ready to shoot air to air> that's where we went. Brian W.>
> > From: pequeajim@gmail.com> > To: lightning-list@matronics.com> > Subjec
t: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Article> > Date: Tue=2C 29 Jul 2
y" > > --> <pequeajim@gmail.com>> > > > I have mixed emotions about the art
icle. I tend to not enjoy articles > > as much when the author has multiple
opinions throughout. I also think> > > he should have done his review base
d on the current production model. > > If you know you are going to write a
bout the latest version=2C why > > comment in detail about the older one?>
> > > I'll leave that where it lies and then add some additional thoughts>
later.> > I don't want to ruin it for anyone either...> > > > Jim!> > > > -
----Original Message-----> > From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.co
m> > [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> > Whittingham> > Sent: Tuesday=2C July 29=2C 2008 6:40 PM> > To: lightnin
g-list@matronics.com> > Subject: Lightning-List: Lightning Kitplanes Articl
i@hotmail.com>> > > > > > All=2C> > > > I have read the kitplanes article f
rom the September 2008 issue. I > > haven't seen it on the shelves yet=2C b
ut you can buy it pay per view> here:> > http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/25
_9/flight_reports/issues_flightrepor> > ts_834 4-1.phtml or if you're a gee
k like me you can get it now and > > then get the magazine when it comes ou
t too! It is a great read that > > will show you some of the development of
the safety=2C reliability=2C and > > feel.> > > > The last one=2C although
I have not gotten a chance to fly the latest > > verion of the Lightning i
s a big one. I loved the only slightly > > positive pitch stability of the
original. I know that Buz and Nick> felt the same way.> > This made it feel
a lot more like an aerobatic sportplane or a > > fighter. The change in fe
el does make the plane much easier to fly=2C > > more forgiving=2C and ease
s the pilot workload. The new engine mount > > moves the CG forward=2C impr
oves feel and safety=2C and in my opinion > > makes the plane look even bet
ter.> > > > You'll notice that the guy who wrote the article had to get thr
ough to> > > the current demonstrator in improvements before he liked the h
andling.> > Everything else he loved about the plane except pitch feel. I w
on't > > spoil the ending by telling you what he thought about the new chan
ges=2C> > > but I will say this: the guy was lucky enough to fly 3 Lightnin
gs! I > > think he was just trying to get a little extra free stick time> p
ersonally =3B-) Brian W.> > > > ___________________________________________
______________________> > Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Fam
ily Safety.> > http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid
=TXT_TAGLM_> > WL_fam> > ily_safety_072008> > > > > =======
=================> > >=> > > > > > > >
> > ________________________________> > Time for vacation? WIN what you nee
d. Enter Now!> <http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jly
==========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live for mobile=2C your contacts travel with you.
http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_
072008
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lightning Kitplanes Article |
Having read both the draft article and now the final as it is published in
the magazine, I think overall it is an overall good write up. However,
without getting into a long discussion in this email, the writer, a good guy that
has a great background in aviation, still thinks that the main reason the
latest demo shows positive stability is the CG. Even though both Nick and I
spend hours telling him why the previous bungee trim system was what made the
original Lightning (and Esqual) fly like they were neutral to slightly unstabel
in pitch, he still thinks it was a CG issue. Note, the three Lightnings he
flew were within a "hair" of being at exactly at the same CG. I may get into
a longer explanation in a future newsletter, but for now, just let me say
that the new trim system is what made the difference and I highly recommend that
flying Lightnings upgrade to that system.
As an Oshkosh update, we have four Lightnings here - the factory demo, Tom
and Al's Wisconsin demo, Buddy's Green Landings Special that Ryan brought up,
and once again Bill Hubbard's "jet". Remember, Bill was the first to fly a
customer completed Lightning to OSH last year. This Friday will be the
Lightning forum and then the Lightning get together at their booth after the forum.
Blue Skies,
Buz
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I shared these comments in the EAA tent at Osh yesterday, but I want to repeat
here for the comment of others:
It looks like the level of completion and lack of overall builder performed glass/composite
work on the Lightning might be a problem with the latest interpretation
of the 51% rule.
I would suggest, as an alternative to providing components of the kit in a "less
complete" format, that the FAA allow a builder to demonstrate glass/composite
construction skills on a part which does not become part of the final aircraft.
I'd gladly build a small and simple mold; lay in gelcoat, glass, resin, etc; remove
and trim; attach a bracket; etc etc.
This would demonstrate to the FAA that I had the experience to work on this glass
kit, but it would not require me to have large molds to do so.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195758#195758
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello All,
I just reviewed Van's quick build kits and I see very little difference
between their state of completion and that of the delivered Arion Kit.
It seems to me the Lightning should have little difficulty in
demonstrating that we indeed built "51%" of our kit.
However, what if the FAA says that the kit does not meet the "51%"
intent of the rule, what then?????
Bill Applegate, Tucson, AZ with kit #49.
jhausch wrote:
>
>I shared these comments in the EAA tent at Osh yesterday, but I want to repeat
here for the comment of others:
>
>It looks like the level of completion and lack of overall builder performed glass/composite
work on the Lightning might be a problem with the latest interpretation
of the 51% rule.
>
>I would suggest, as an alternative to providing components of the kit in a "less
complete" format, that the FAA allow a builder to demonstrate glass/composite
construction skills on a part which does not become part of the final aircraft.
>
>I'd gladly build a small and simple mold; lay in gelcoat, glass, resin, etc; remove
and trim; attach a bracket; etc etc.
>
>This would demonstrate to the FAA that I had the experience to work on this glass
kit, but it would not require me to have large molds to do so.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195758#195758
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|